Excerpts from poll by Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The full poll can be found on their website.

Study of US Public Attitudes
Summary of Findings
November 16, 1999
Steven Kull, Principal Investigator

... To explore in depth the American public's attitudes toward these questions, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducted three focus groups and a nationwide poll. The focus groups were held in Dallas, Texas; Battle Creek, Michigan; and Baltimore, Maryland. The poll was conducted October 21-29, 1999, with 1,826 randomly selected adults (weighted to be demographically representative). The margin of error ranged from +/- 2 to 4%, depending on the portion of the sample that heard the question, with most questions at the 4% level.

Globalization in General

... a strong majority of 61% thought the US government should either "actively promote" globalization (28%) or "allow it to continue" (33%). Only 26% favored trying to "slow it down," and just 9% favored trying to "stop or reverse it."

Early in the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they had heard the term "globalization." Seventy percent said they had. Respondents were asked to say what the word meant to them. In various ways, virtually all responses described globalization as a growing interconnectedness of the world. As one respondent said, "It means we've become a more global society, economically and politically, so decisions being made here affect other areas, and other governments' decisions affect us." Said another, "Whatever happens in one country affects all countries."

The dimensions of this interconnectedness varied. Most commonly cited was the economic dimension. One respondent said, "It means we trade with everybody and everybody trades with us." Another explained, "It means that in business everybody all over the world is connected monetarily."

However, this does not mean globalization was seen as only, or even primarily, an economic process.

A bit more than half of respondents did not mention the economic dimension at all. A substantial number spoke in terms of values and norms. As one respondent said, globalization is "looking at things in terms of the world instead of a single country," while another said it is "all countries united, working for a better world." Others talked in terms of international institutions, for example defining globalization as "the United Nations and their [sic] influence."

International Trade

In principle, a majority of Americans supports the growth of international trade. However, the benefits of trade to date are seen as barely outweighing the costs for most sectors of society, except for the business community. A strong majority feels trade has not grown in a way that adequately incorporates concerns for American workers, international labor standards and the environment. Support for fast track is low, apparently because it signifies the increase of trade without incorporating these concerns. Americans are very quick to favor withholding trade in support of these and other concerns. To the extent these concerns are addressed, a strong majority said it would support the further growth of international trade.

... The World Trade Organization (WTO) did not fare much better than the US government. Sixty-five percent agreed that, "When the World Trade Organization makes decisions, it tends to think about what's best for business, but not about what's best for the world as a whole."

Consistent with this view, a majority of 56% said they thought "The growth of international trade has increased the gap between rich and poor in this country." Only 10% said trade has decreased the gap, while 27% said it has had no effect.

... in every case a strong majority favored limiting trade as a means of pressuring countries to change their behavior. Strong majorities favored limiting trade with specific countries for supporting terrorist groups (Liby a: 81%, Iran: 80%); for attempting to build nuclear weapons (Iran: 83%); for refusing to sign an international agreement to outlaw chemical weapons (Libya: 85%); for selling components for nuclear weapons and missiles to other countries, in violation of an international treaty (China: 83%); for violating international standards for human rights (Iran: 81%, China: 75%, Cuba: 70%, Burma: 77%); and for testing nuclear weapons (India: 71%, Pakistan: 78%). Seventy-two percent also favored restricting the importation of tuna from Mexico because the fishing methods there kill dolphins, and 63% favored restricting the importation of shrimp from both India and Pakistan because fishing methods there kill sea turtles.

Workers & Trade

... Overall, Americans feel that US workers are not really benefiting from the increase in international trade. When asked how trade has affected American workers, just 25% said on balance it has been positive, a plurality of 45% said it has been negative, and 27% said it has been neutral. Asked about "US government officials who are making decisions about US international trade policy," 72% said they give too little consideration to "working Americans."

In general, when Americans are asked to choose between the lowering of prices through freer trade and preserving American jobs, they tend to choose the latter. Respondents were presented a scenario in which the US makes a trade agreement that leads to a US shoe factory closing. The workers have to find new jobs that pay on average $5,000 per year less, but the American consumers save $20 per pair of shoes. Based on this information, 63% said the US would have made a mistake by entering into the agreement.

An overwhelming majority favored requiring compliance with international labor standards as part of international trade agreements. An overwhelming majority also felt that the United States should not allow products to be imported when they have been made under conditions in violation of international labor standards.

Support for Including Labor Standards in Trade Agreements (Percent Finding Argument Convincing)

Countries who do not maintain minimum standards for working conditions have an unfair advantage because they can exploit workers and produce goods for less. (74%)

If countries are required to raise their standards.this will force some companies to eliminate the jobs of poor people who desperately need the work. (37%)

Countries should be required to meet minimum standards. because it is immoral for workers to be subject to harsh and unsafe conditions in the workplace. (83%)

It is up to each country to set its own standards.the international community should not intrude by trying to dictate what each country should do within its borders. (41%)

93% said that "countries that are part of international trade agreements should be required to maintain minimum standards for working conditions."

Further, an overwhelming majority supported the view that in some cases the US should bar the import of products made under substandard working conditions. Overwhelming majorities wanted to bar products made by children under the age of 15 when they "are required to work so many hours that they cannot go to school" (80%), or when they are "forced to work under threat of punishment" (82%). Products made by adult "workers in factories that are unsafe or unhealthy" also should be barred from the US, according to a very strong 77% majority. However, only 42% thought the US should bar "products made by workers who are not allowed to organize into unions."

Environment & Trade

Americans overwhelmingly support the view that there should be more international agreements on environmental standards. A very strong majority rejects the WTO's current position that countries should not be able to restrict imports based on the environmental effects of their production.

Support for International Agreements on Environmental Problems (Percent Finding Argument Convincing)

Many environmental problems are global in nature. Therefore, the only way to solve them is to get all countries involved in addressing the problems. (78%)

It should be up to each country how it deals with its environment. There should not be international bodies that tell countries what to do. (33%)

If some countries have lower environmental standards than others, then companies.will relocate to countries with low standards. This will be bad for the environment and will take jobs away from countries with high standards. (67%)

For some countries, raising their environmental standards will be much more costly than it will be for other countries. Creating international agreements will lead to pressures to make all countries abide by the same standards. This would not be fair. (37%)

77% (48% strongly) felt there should be more international agreements on environmental standards.

A very strong majority (74%) also rejected the WTO's position that countries should not be able to restrict imports based on the environmental effects of their production.

88% (67% strongly) said that "American companies that operate in other countries should be expected to abide by US environmental standards."

Helping Poor Countries

Most Americans perceive poor countries as not benefiting from the increase of international trade and support giving poor countries preferential trade treatment. Very strong majorities believed that the US has a moral obligation to promote development in poor countries and that doing so ultimately would serve US economic interests.

Support for helping poor countries is prompted by moral and self-interest motives. A strong 68% agreed (31% strongly) that, "the United States has a moral responsibility toward poor nations to help them develop economically." At the same time, strong majorities thought that "in the long run, if developing countries do become stronger economically," this would have a positive impact on "US business opportunities in developing countries" (74%), "the US economy" (70%), and even "jobs in the United States" (63%).

International Cooperation

A very strong majority supports international cooperation to address global problems, even in some cases intervening in countries' internal affairs. This includes international institutions acting when there is economic instability; to deal with terrorism or environmental issues; and when a country is committing atrocities, with force if necessary. Majorities favor strengthening the UN, the World Court, and the WTO, though only a plurality favors strengthening the IMF. A strong majority favors an International Criminal Court, and a modest majority supports a standing UN peacekeeping force. A strong majority feels the US should abide by WTO decisions when they go against the US, and a majority favors the US accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court.

An overwhelming 78% agreed with the following: Because the world is so interconnected today, the US should participate in efforts to maintain peace, protect human rights, and promote economic development. Such efforts serve US interests because they help to create a more stable world that is less apt to have wars and is better for the growth of trade and other US goals.

Only 39% agreed (58% disagreed) with the argument against such efforts: It is nice to think that joining in international efforts makes a more stable world. But in fact, the world is so big and complex that such efforts only make a minimal difference with little benefit to the US. Therefore, it is not really in the US interest to participate in them.